asgcpa
En-Route
I resemble that remark...lol
I resemble that remark...lol
roncachamp
Final Approach
He could have done that but he certainly didn't need to.
There's no suggestion that safety was compromised in any way here.
He did cooperate, he followed the controller's instructions completely.
Try to understand, it's not the pilot's performance that wasn't up to snuff here, it's the controller's.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
roncachamp
Final Approach
My understanding is it was the pilot. Is that yours as well?
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
Yes. You think a poll is necessary to determine how many others are seeking the same opportunity?
roncachamp
Final Approach
Opportunity for what?
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Check out the title line, steve.....
To call the tower...
roncachamp
Final Approach
An opportunity to call a control tower? I'm pretty sure everyone has that opportunity.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
The number of calls to our tower is so overwhelming that the controllers are using Facetime to handle the overflow.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ignore Stephen.
roncachamp
Final Approach
docmirror
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Cowboy - yeehah!
Harsh. Kinda interesting to see a guy willing to call in an arty strike on his own people. Like a pilot owning up to making a mistake.
Jeanie
Pattern Altitude
Jeez Louise guys. There was a miscommunication between a tower controller and an inbound pilot. It was discussed and resolved from what I read.
Bottom line, it seems to me, is be aware of clarity of communication ...
This is in the lessons learned forum.
Bottom line, it seems to me, is be aware of clarity of communication ...
This is in the lessons learned forum.
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
You know, if the controller would have just said to the pilot "Hey, I would have preferred you went around and entered downwind rather than crossing midfield." we would have had all the learning, without the accusation of the controller saying that there was a Pilot Deviation.
So, to sum up the 6 pages so far as I see it:
1) Controller assumed something
2) Controller gave instructions that could be (and were) misinterpreted
3) Pilot learned something
4) No evidence of any violation of regulations or controller instructions has been shown
So, to sum up the 6 pages so far as I see it:
1) Controller assumed something
2) Controller gave instructions that could be (and were) misinterpreted
3) Pilot learned something
4) No evidence of any violation of regulations or controller instructions has been shown
roncachamp
Final Approach
What miscommunication? The pilot was told to report midfield left downwind for the runway, he then established himself on midfield left downwind for the runway and reported it.
roncachamp
Final Approach
No, the controller gave instructions that could be complied with in a manner other than expected by the controller. It was only the controller that screwed up here, the pilot is clean.
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,962
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
I am not sure anyone "screwed up." I think this is more in line with it could have been handled better. The controller gave an instruction that I think most of us would say was not the best way to enter the pattern in towered environment. I base this on my limited experience in towered environments(probably about 300 landings or so) I have been given right entries and left entries based on my position relative to the field, and entries for base, downwind, and straight in based on my position relative to the field. Anytime the entry did not agree with what I expected from the tower, I have called the tower and confirmed. Most of the time, the entry has been changed to the more convenient entry. One time I was asked to enter a downwind when a straight in or a base would have been more appropriate. I asked for a base entry and basically was told to do the downwind because he had another plane behind me on an IFR straight-in approach(in CAVU) and needed the separation. There is the possibility the controller gave a bad instruction and is in CYA mode.
The OP could have handled this better as well. He could have called the tower and asked for instructions on how the tower wanted him to enter the downwind, or asked for a pattern entry that was more sensible.
In the end, I do not think anyone did anything that was "against the regulations" nor did anyone really make a mistake or screwed up; I think it could have been handled better by both the controller and the pilot. I think however it was inappropriate for the tower to request a phone call, though in the end it has turned out to be a learning experience for us all, and this is what POA does best.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I am.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
so to reiterate: what is wrong with being mature, and co-operative, and either honing the guy's expectation or calling in that you're better setup for the opposite downwind?
Give up, we've gone beyond common sense.
douglas393
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,962
- Display Name
Display name:
douglas
I do not know
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not a thing...I think the OP learned that lesson.
Doesn't make the controller's accusation of a pilot deviation correct though
airguy
Cleared for Takeoff
I usually get on here and start reading posts in the morning over my second cup of coffee, just to get some amusement out people on the internet telling each other they are wrong.
You guys never disappoint...
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
I usually get on here and start reading posts in the morning over my second cup of coffee, just to get some amusement out people on the internet telling each other they are wrong.
You guys never disappoint...
